*Opinion | The Politics of Silence, Insults, and Desperation in the Mundubile Camp*
_By Michael Zephaniah Phiri Political Activist_
Recent events within the opposition space raise serious questions about leadership, accountability, and the ethics of silence. What the public is witnessing is not merely disagreement, it is a pattern of confusion, insults, and factional manoeuvring that demands scrutiny.
A series of public attacks by Lilian Mutambo against long-serving PF members and senior figures has unsettled many within the party. What concerns observers most is not only the tone of these remarks, but the absence of any public rebuke from Hon. Brian Mundubile, who is frequently associated with the leadership of a Tonse Alliance structure whose legal standing remains unclear. In politics, silence is rarely accidental. It often signals comfort, if not consent.
*Questions That Will Not Go Away*
There are persistent questions, widely discussed within political circles about internal disagreements following the Bill 7 episode. These discussions centre on expectations of mobilisation, control of resources, and trust among allies. While no formal disclosures have been made, the resulting divisions are visible and undeniable. When internal disputes spill into public insults, leadership must either intervene or accept responsibility for the outcome.
The conduct of former Secretary General Davies Mwila, who publicly called on those associated with Bill 7 to “apologise to the people,” further exposed these tensions. To many, this appeared less like a national moral appeal and more like an internal political signal—an attempt to restore order without addressing the root causes of disagreement.
*Institutional Confusion and Political Overreach*
The confusion deepened when appointments and titles began to emerge under a Tonse Alliance banner that lacks formal registration. Announcements of positions such as “National Chairperson for Elections” have only reinforced perceptions of disorder, raising legitimate concerns about credibility, legality, and respect for established party structures.
This disorder does not strengthen the opposition; it weakens it.
*The Risk of Trading Legacy for Leverage*
The entry of Tasila Lungu Mwansa into this contested political space has understandably drawn public attention. Her surname carries national weight because of President Edgar Chagwa Lungu’s legacy. That legacy, however, cannot and should not be used as a bargaining tool in factional struggles.
If Tasila Lungu Mwansa believes in a particular political direction, transparency is her safest ally. Ambiguity, especially when coupled with figures whose loyalty has previously been questioned, creates the perception of manipulation rather than leadership. History shows that political legacies are often diluted not by opponents, but by opportunists who promise protection while delivering isolation.
*Chawama and the Politics of Selective Gratitude*
The recent Chawama by-election offered a clear lesson. Genuine grassroots mobilisation, not political noise or opportunistic alliances, determines outcomes. Attempts to rewrite that reality, by sidelining those who did the work and elevating those who failed at the ballot, only expose a growing disconnect between leadership ambitions and ground truth.
*Conclusion: Leadership Is Action, Not Silence*
Political leadership is tested not when supporters are obedient, but when allies are attacked unfairly. Remaining silent while insults fly, institutions are confused, and legacies are leveraged is not strategic restraint, it is abdication.
Zambians are discerning. They understand the difference between unity and coercion, between strategy and desperation. Any political project built on silence, intimidation, and confusion will ultimately collapse under its own weight.
The question is no longer who is speaking loudly but who is choosing not to speak at all.